TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is entitled, under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to seek expert examination of the cheque and the handwriting thereon to rebut the complainant's case, and whether a wrong mention of the enabling provision defeats such an .
Analysis: Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act only confers a prima facie authority to complete an incomplete negotiable instrument and is subject to the statutory limitations attached to such authority. Even where presumptions under Section 118(a) or Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate, the accused must be given a fair opportunity to rebut them by leading defence evidence. The right to defend oneself is part of the guarantee of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 expressly recognises the accused's right to seek process for defence evidence unless the request is shown to be vexatious, delayed, or intended to defeat justice. The nature of defence evidence is ordinarily for the accused to choose, and the request for expert examination of the cheque was held to be bona fide and relevant for rebuttal. The wrong mentioning of the provision as Section 293 instead of Section 243 did not matter because jurisdiction existed to entertain the application.
Conclusion: The accused was entitled to have the cheque referred for expert examination for defence purposes, and rejection of that request was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: An accused must ordinarily be afforded a fair opportunity under Section 243(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to adduce relevant defence evidence, including expert examination of a disputed document, and a mere wrong citation of the provision does not invalidate a bona fide application when the court otherwise has jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
